Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Seattle & King County

1.0 introduction

5

I ntrod uct ion
•

Overview

•

Introduction to Multimodal Level of Service

•

»»

What is Multimodal Level of Service?

»»

“Standards” versus “Measures”

»»

Level of Service and Concurrency

Traditional LOS measures can often contradict efforts to improve a street’s
functionality and safety for all users. For example, improving the functionality
of a street to better serve bicyclists and pedestrians may result in a lower
vehicle level of service for that roadway, and therefore may not be acceptable
within the community’s adopted LOS standards. Meanwhile, improving the
LOS for a roadway, under a traditional LOS framework, would likely mean
adding roadway capacity, which often results in increased automobile
speeds, traffic volumes and other factors that have been shown to decrease
safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. Without LOS measures and standards
in place that allow for all modes of transportation to be evaluated and
considered in transportation planning and analysis, adding roadway capacity,
or widening the roadway, would be seen only as a positive mitigation.

The Contents of this Guide

Introduction to Multimodal Level of Service

Overview
As communities within Washington state and across the country recognize
the importance of passing and implementing Complete Streets policies,
there is a need to understand the inconsistencies within each community’s
transportation planning and analysis framework. One such barrier toward
creating a more balanced transportation system comes in the form of the
traditional transportation analysis and level of service (LOS) measures and
standards adopted by individual jurisdictions.
In general terms, LOS is a classification system used to describe the quality
of the mobility provided by a transportation system. It is an alphabetical
grading system that provides a measurement of the number of vehicles a
roadway can accommodate over a given period of time. The concept of LOS
has been used by traffic and transportation engineers for nearly 50 years to
describe conditions for automobile travel on existing or future roadways.
Until recently, transportation engineering and planning in the United States
has focused primarily around the movement of the automobile. Roadways
were designed and subsequently evaluated based on their performance from
the perspective of an automobile driver. LOS became the widely accepted
methodology for measuring the performance of such roadways, which worked in
the favor of motor vehicle travel, often at the expense of other roadway users.
multimodal level of service in king county

With increasing attention toward public health, local economies, livable
communities and the environment, and increased emphasis on the use of
transit, walking and bicycling, the traditional approach to traffic operations
analysis should no longer be viewed as effective. Moreover, without LOS
standards that allow for trade-offs between modes to be evaluated, the
ability for communities to fund and build transit and nonmotorized projects
can be compromised in the event that it reduces the LOS for motor vehicles
(Milam).
In recent years, there has been a shift away from considering only the
automobile as a mode of travel when designing urban streets. More
attention is being placed on street designs that accommodate all users – a
Complete Streets approach. Multimodal level of service measures and
standards – the basis for this Guide – are essential as communities look to
evaluate trade-offs to each mode of transportation when designing streets.
Transportation policies, including the approach to traffic analysis, should align
with the community’s vision. Moving toward a multimodal LOS framework
is important as communities seek a more balanced and sustainable
transportation system. Adopting a multimodal LOS framework can provide
communities with the data needed to make informed decisions about modal
impacts when evaluating roadway designs.

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

1.0 introduction

6

What is Multimodal Level of Service?
Multimodal LOS standards and measures are based on the person-capacity
rather than automobile-capacity of a transportation system. Measuring
multimodal LOS is a complex process given the degree of interaction
between modes, but there are existing models and application guides to
assist agencies in calculating multimodal LOS. The 2010 Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM), published in 2011, provides a comprehensive framework for
evaluating multimodal LOS. This is discussed further in Chapter 4.0, along
with other models used across the country.
A multimodal LOS framework provides an analytical tool for cities to use
when looking at trade-offs to each roadway user group (See Table 1 below)
and to support decision-making around the community’s vision. For
example, efforts to improve LOS for vehicles might mean adding capacity in
the form of additional vehicle lanes and wider intersections. Being able to
determine the impacts to other modes through a multimodal LOS calculation
in this scenario might indicate to the decision makers that adding automobile
capacity is not the best solution to support the community’s vision.
Table 1: Example output chart: Multimodal LOS Framework
Mode

Four-lane cross-section, no
bicycle lanes

Three-lane cross-section,
bicycle lanes, center
turn-lane

Auto

C

C

Bicycle

F

D

Pedestrian

E

D

Transit

D

D

Conceptual

The objective of this Guide is to provide resources and examples of
multimodal LOS models, and to illustrate the importance of adopting
multimodal analytical tools and measures. Ultimately, however, it is up to
each community to decide what is acceptable in terms of LOS standards and
mitigation measures. The community’s adopted LOS standards should align
with the vision and values of that community. For instance, if a community
wants to improve walkability in its downtown core, the LOS standards should
multimodal level of service in king county

reflect this goal. Some communities have approached this by allowing lower
automobile LOS in certain areas, like commercial districts and urban villages.
“Standards” versus “Measures”
One clarification that should be made is in the use of the terms “measures”
and “standards.” When referring to multimodal LOS measures, we are
referring to the analytical methods for calculating the quality and level of
service provided to users of the transportation system, such as the methods
recommended in the HCM. This Guide focuses primarily on measures.
When referencing multimodal LOS standards, we are referring to the policy
frameworks adopted by communities for acceptable LOS scores. For
instance, a community might adopt a policy that allows for an automobile
LOS of “F” in its downtown core, as long as bicycle, pedestrian and transit
LOS are at “C” or better. Adopting these standards should align with the
community’s vision.
Level of Service and Concurrency
Throughout this Guide, the term “concurrency” will also often be used in
describing LOS approaches and strategies. Washington state’s Growth
Management Act (GMA) contains a provision requiring local jurisdictions to
have in place or to have funded necessary transportation facilities concurrent
with new development. The Regulatory Concurrency provision of the GMA is
intended to provide a link between land use development and transportation
investment.
The investment in a community’s transportation system – and therefore
its transportation concurrency – is directly influenced by the community’s
adopted LOS standards. For example, simply lowering adopted LOS
standards can allow development to proceed even if it results in increased
traffic congestion. Conversely, in order to maintain the adopted LOS of a
roadway, a city may be required to devote resources to roadway widening in
order to permit development. Last, most cities’ concurrency methodology
does not support rigorous multimodal analysis due to the lack of reliable
measures for determining the impact of alternative mode improvements on
area mobility. While some jurisdictions discussed later in this Guide have
taken steps towards researching and implementing a multimodal concurrency

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

1.0 introduction

7

system, many cities still have LOS standards based on measuring vehicular
capacity of a roadway, which does not explicitly measure or recognize the
capacity provided by carpools, transit, or nonmotorized facilities.
The Washington State Legislature has been reviewing and revising the
GMA Concurrency law and the requirements contained therein for several
years. In 2005, it authorized a study of multimodal concurrency to analyze
ways that transit, walking, and other modes could be incorporated into local
concurrency systems and level of service standards. The impacts of the
GMA concurrency requirements, as well as local examples of multimodal
concurrency and LOS research and implementation are discussed in greater
detail in Chapter 3.0 of this Guide.

The Contents of this Guide
The purpose of this Guide is to illustrate the importance of utilizing a
multimodal LOS framework when evaluating transportation systems and
roadway designs. Transportation analysis plays an integral role when
planning under the Growth Management Act; given this, it is critical that
communities have an adopted LOS framework that supports the community’s
vision, whether it is for Complete Streets, improved public health or reduced
environmental impacts. This Guide provides an overview of the resources
and tools available for communities to develop and adopt a methodology for
evaluating the levels of service for all roadway users.
Chapter 2.0 provides an overview of the level of service concept and a
brief history of LOS, including how it came to be the prevailing method for
transportation analysis. This section introduces the Highway Capacity Manual
and provides a background on the multimodal LOS methods incorporated
into each edition of the Manual. Last, the chapter describes the potential
trade-offs between traditional LOS measurements and those employed by
multimodal LOS models.
Chapter 3.0 describes the Washington State Growth Management Act
level of service and concurrency requirements and discusses planning
issues around these requirements. This chapter also gives an overview of
multimodal level of service in king county

guiding principles behind the countywide LOS framework. The remainder
of the chapter comprises a series of local case studies of communities in
Washington state that have researched and adopted multimodal frameworks
for transportation system evaluation. The most notable cities to have gone
so far as to research and/or incorporate multimodal LOS models into their
comprehensive plans and transportation policies are Kirkland, Bellevue, and
Redmond.
Chapter 4.0 provides a more detailed and technical overview of the state
of the practice in multimodal LOS planning and development at a national
level. The main emphasis of this chapter is on the 2010 Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) and the multimodal LOS models the new version offers to
planners and engineers since the HCM’s last iteration in 2000. The HCM
2010 provides an integrated multimodal LOS framework that represents
a comprehensive approach to evaluating trade-offs for each user group
in different roadway environments. This chapter also touches on several
other examples of alternative-mode LOS frameworks, such as the Florida
Department of Transportation’s Quality/Level of Service Handbook, the
Transit Quality and Capacity Service Manual, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Level of Service models.
The Appendix to this Guide contains additional relevant information on
multimodal LOS, including an overview of the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program’s Report 616 (NCHRP Report 616), which informed the
multimodal LOS methods incorporated in the HCM 2010, as well as an
overview of the multimodal LOS equations included in the HCM 2010.
The organization of this Guide is such that the user can easily locate whatever
might be desired without running across too much overlapping information
or redundancy. In short, Chapter 2.0 is an overview of traditional LOS and
an introduction to multimodal LOS; Chapter 3.0 features local applications
and case studies; and Chapter 4.0 is a detailed description of models being
used across the United States, with special emphasis on the HCM 2010. The
Appendix contains additional resources.

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

The Highway Capacity Manual defines six levels of service thresholds, based
on average through-vehicle speed, ranging from LOS “A” to LOS “F”. While
research has concluded that travelers perceive less than six levels of service,
the “A” through “F” grading system has been retained to provide a greater
range of performance levels upon which agencies can base their decisions.
Level of service ratings are generally classified as follows (Transportation
Research Board, 2008):

What is Level of Service?
»»

8

Highway Capacity Manual

LOS A: Low volume, high speeds, no delay. High freedom to select
desired speed and maneuver within traffic stream.

Traditional LOS Trade-offs

LOS B: Stable flow with reasonable freedom to select speed.
What is Level of Service?
In general terms, level of service (LOS) is a classification system used to
describe the quality of the mobility provided by a transportation system. It is
an alphabetical grading system that provides a measurement of the number
of vehicles a roadway can accommodate over a given period of time (Bucher,
Willis & Ratliff Corporation, 2006). The concept of LOS has been used by
traffic and transportation engineers for nearly 50 years to describe conditions
for automobile travel on existing or future roadways (Milam). The definition
for LOS used by the Transportation Research Board in the Highway Capacity
Manual (2000) is:
“Level of service (LOS) is a quality measure describing operational
conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service
measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic
interruptions, and comfort and convenience.”
There are a variety of measures that LOS can be based on; most common are
congestion and vehicle delay. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) has
developed and revised LOS standards for traffic congestion. The traditional
measurement is based on a volume to capacity (V/C) ratio. The Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) provides a specific methodology, widely used, for
estimating average vehicular delay at intersections. Delay is typically defined
as the difference between actual travel time and travel time given no other
vehicles or traffic control devices.
multimodal level of service in king county

LOS C: Stable flow, but speed and maneuverability are affected by the
presence of others and require care on the part of the driver.
LOS D: Approaches unstable flow. Speed and maneuverability are
severely restricted. Small additions to traffic flow generally will cause
operational problems.
LOS E: Represents operating conditions at or near capacity of the
highway. Low speeds. Freedom to maneuver is extremely difficult. Any
incident can cause extensive queuing.
LOS F: Represents forced-flow operation at very low speeds. Operations
are characterized by stop-and-go traffic. Vehicles may progress at
reasonable speeds for several hundred feet or more, and then be
required to stop (Level of Service Definitions).
One common concern with the “A” through “F” framework is how the LOS
categories can be perceived in similar ways to school report card grades.
Under this perception, LOS “A” would be seen as the desired goal; however,
achieving LOS “A” for a roadway wouldn’t necessarily be a desirable
outcome for most transportation systems. This would mean a roadway with
little to no use, or a roadway designed with significantly more capacity than
necessary.

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

Alert public officials to opportunities for improved efficiency and
savings.

•

Can and should move beyond quantitative measures and provide
measures for the quality of facilities and services provided.

•

Provide an opportunity for neighboring jurisdictions to
coordinate LOS standards to assure consistency.

1

Measuring LOS helps a jurisdiction to:
•

Provide a consistent, systematic evaluation of existing conditions.

•

Produce results in terms that can be easily understood by
transportation professionals and the general public.

•

Provide an objective method for identifying and prioritizing
transportation system improvements.

•

Allow for evaluation of improvement types and cross-sections
(Parks, 2011).

In 1994, the Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington state’s
Level of Service Standards Guide (Washington, 1994) outlined the following
reasons for establishing LOS standards:
•

Provide a benchmark for evaluating transportation service
deficiencies.

•

Define what new public facilities and services will be needed to
support new development.

•

Provide a basis for assuring that existing services are maintained
as new development is served.

•

Provide a benchmark for monitoring progress toward meeting
growth management and public service goals.

1 Complete streets are roadways designed and operated to enable safe, attractive and comfortable access and
travel for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and public transportation users of all ages and
abilities.

multimodal level of service in king county

With recognition that multiple modes share the roadway environment,
the LOS measures used by a jurisdiction should look comprehensively at
the roadway performance from each users’ perspective, including cyclists
and pedestrians. Without a holistic evaluation framework, the community’s
transportation planning and design will likely be biased toward a single
mode.

History of Level of Service
Level of service is a framework that transportation professionals have used
for several decades to evaluate existing conditions for a mode of travel in a
transportation system. The concept of Level of service was first introduced in
the 1965 version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), published by the
Highway Research Board (HRB) and authored by the Committee on Highway
Capacity. The original definition of level of service, as it pertains to highways,
was given in the 1965 Highway Capacity Manual (HRB, 1965) as follows:
“Level of service is a qualitative measure of the effect of a number
of factors, which include speed and travel time, traffic interruptions,
freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort and convenience, and
operating costs.”
LOS gained popularity given the accessibility of the methodologies and the
“A” through “F” rating system.
Over the years, multimodal LOS models have evolved to what is now
incorporated in the HCM 2010, an integrated multimodal LOS model
for urban streets. Recent research has informed the development of the

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

2.0 overview of level of service
multimodal LOS framework in the HCM 2010 to incorporate multiple
factors and allow for more service-quality factors to be considered. Other
multimodal models, initially developed in the 1990s (and discussed in
Chapter 4.0) include the Bicycle and Pedestrian LOS (developed by Sprinkle
Consulting) and the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. These
models have been applied in jurisdictions across the United States.
Highway Capacity Manual
The Highway Capacity Manual is a widely-used reference manual containing
concepts, guidelines and computational procedures for calculating the
capacity and quality of service of various transportation facilities: freeways;
highways; arterial roads; roundabouts; signalized and unsignalized
intersections; and rural highways (Wikipedia). The HCM also includes
information about transit, pedestrians and bicyclists. Five editions of the
HCM have been published, with LOS procedures evolving through each
edition.
The 1950 HCM was a product of a collaborative effort between the Highway
Research Board’s Committee on Highway Capacity and the Bureau of Public
Roads (now known as the Federal Highway Administration). The 1950 HCM
was the first international manual focused on the fundamentals of highway
capacity (Transportation Research Board, 2010). Subsequent editions of the
HCM were published in 1965, 1985, 2000 and most recently, 2010.
The 1965 HCM introduced the concept of level of service. It included a short
chapter on bus transit in addition to the standard automobile LOS measures
and was the first edition to introduce the widely adopted “A” through “F”
letter scale (McLeod). In the 1985 HCM, short chapters on pedestrian and
bicycle LOS were incorporated, as well as an expanded chapter on transit.
The bicycle chapter focused primarily on bicycle impacts to vehicular capacity
and the pedestrian chapter provided a sidewalk and street corner LOS based
on average space per pedestrian (Vandehey & Bessman, Multimodal Level of
Service in the 2010 HCM).
Automobile LOS methodologies in the HCM 2000 estimated LOS for
intersections and roadway segments based on the ratio of vehicle demand to
capacity of the roadway – termed V/C ratio – or on the average seconds of
multimodal level of service in king county

10
delay to vehicles at intersections. The LOS set forth in the HCM 2000 is the
most widely used measure of transportation facility performance.
The HCM 2000 provided expanded chapters on pedestrians, bicycles and
transit. Pedestrian LOS measures included space per pedestrian, average
delay and average travel speed. The expanded bicycle chapter included
methods for off-street paths and bicycle lanes at traffic signals and along
urban streets. The bicycle LOS measures included average travel speed,
average delay and hindrance. The revised transit LOS included frequency,
hours of service, passenger load and reliability. The HCM 2000 methods
focus on capacity and delay; however, research (National Cooperative
Highway Research Project 3-70) informing the HCM 2010 concluded that
capacity and delay are not the key factors to be considered when evaluating
quality of service. Other factors such as automobile volumes are of critical
importance to bicycle and pedestrian levels of service.
Up until the HCM 2010, pedestrian and bicycle LOS measures generally
reflected a traffic engineer’s perspective – focusing on delay, speed and
demand to capacity. Under these methodologies, a sidewalk with no
pedestrians using it would likely receive a pedestrian LOS of “A,” based
on measures of speed, delay and space; whereas a sidewalk with high
pedestrian volumes would receive a pedestrian LOS score of “E” or “F.”
The HCM 2010 – the most recent edition – is the culmination of a multiagency effort between the Transportation Research Board (TRB), the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The approach
taken in the HCM 2010 was to focus on the traveler’s perspective and to
allow trade-offs between modes to be evaluated. It is the first edition to
provide an integrated multimodal level of service methodology. Chapter 4.0
provides a detailed description of the LOS measures included in the HCM
2010.

Traditional LOS Trade-offs
As we now know, the traditional methodology for computing LOS focuses
on the mobility of automobiles. When standards are adopted around these

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

2.0 overview of level of service
measures, the impacts to other modes of transportation are not at the
forefront of transportation decisions and practices. Transportation planning
processes within communities typically include adopting minimum LOS
standards (such as LOS “C” or “D”). If roadways exceed these ratings, they
are generally considered to fail. Mitigation for roadways with failing LOS
ratings typically comes in the form of adding capacity, ultimately creating
wider roadways and intersections. Without a multimodal LOS framework
in place to evaluate the impacts to other modes of transportation in these
situations, the roadway widening may adversely impact the safety and
desirability of using other modes of transportation in the corridor.

11
•

Traditional LOS ignores the tendency of traffic congestion to
maintain equilibrium. A common solution to improving LOS is
adding capacity, which has been shown to induce travel, further
reducing the multimodal opportunities of the respective corridor.
Transportation research has shown that increasing roadway
capacity is not an effective long-term strategy for reducing
roadway congestion as it results in increased traffic flow by
inducing more use of the roadway (EPA, 2001).

•

Because LOS policies influence the size and type of
transportation infrastructure investment, if jurisdictions have LOS
standards that require them to maintain a high LOS for their
roadways, such as LOS “C,” they can require substantial resource
allocation for expansion projects. This may be an inefficient use
of public funds; restructuring LOS standards can be particularly
timely for jurisdictions lacking infrastructure funds (Hilliard &
Milam).

•

While transportation projects such as bicycle lanes and sidewalk
widening have positive environmental benefits, traditional LOS
analysis may conclude that these projects result in adverse
environmental impacts (Bhatia, 2005).

•

Traditional LOS measures and standards can disincentivize
resource-efficient land use and infill development by requiring
high LOS standards to be maintained in order to permit
development. This can encourage sprawling development
into areas where development will not result in exceeding the
adopted LOS standards.

•

Traditional LOS does not reflect an understanding of the
relationships between transportation and the environment.
Increasing LOS for automobiles bears negative environmental
consequences, such as increased impervious surface, loss of
riparian habitat and degraded air quality.

There are many critiques to the traditional LOS approach, but most relevant
to this Guide are the incongruities between an automobile-focused LOS and
the promotion of Complete Streets.
Additional critiques to the traditional LOS approach include:
•

Traditional LOS measures driver comfort and convenience. Using
an automobile LOS without evaluating LOS for other modes
fails to consider relationships and conflicts among other modes.
In effect, this prioritizes motor-vehicle travel and speed at the
expense of non-motorized travel.

•

Traditional LOS analysis does not reflect the ability for roadway
rechannelizations to reduce traffic and support modal shift. In
research (conducted by Sally Cairns) evaluating the 70 case
studies of “before and after” impacts where roadway capacity
was reduced, findings indicated that traffic volumes decreased
on average by 21.9 percent on the affected roadway, as well as
on alternative routes (Bhatia, 2005).

•

Traditional mitigation for improving LOS is adding roadway
capacity. Widening roadways and intersections reduces the
safety for bicyclists and pedestrians by increasing exposure time
at intersections and facilitating faster vehicle speeds.

•

Traditional LOS frames transportation problems as traffic
congestion rather than problems such as mobility for non-drivers
or environmental, health and social costs.

multimodal level of service in king county

Adopting a multimodal LOS framework, on the other hand, can support
a community’s vision for creating a more balanced transportation system.

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

2.0 overview of level of service

12

Traditional LOS measures give privilege to motor vehicles and ultimately
exacerbate the problems associated with increased motor vehicle
use. Aligning transportation policies with the measures used to analyze
transportation systems and on which to ultimately base decisions that
affect all roadway users, bears significant potential to increase bicycling
and walking and improve public health and the environment. The benefits
of adopting a multimodal LOS framework and standards are similar to the
benefits of adopting a Complete Streets policy: both help foster alternative
modes of transportation in a community while improving public health
and the environment. Adopting a multimodal LOS gives communities
the information and legal authority to design and implement Complete
Streets, thereby creating attractive places for people to engage in active
transportation, reducing air quality impacts, and supporting community
cohesion and livability.

multimodal level of service in king county

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Seattle & King County

Moving Toward a Multimodal LOS and Concurrency Framework
in King County
»»

Case Study: City of Kirkland

»»

Case Study: City of Bellevue

»»

Case Study: City of Redmond

Washingt on State Growth Manag em ent Act: LOS
and Concurrency Requirements
In 1990, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) was
adopted by the Washington State Legislature as a way to manage growth
across the state and prevent sprawling development patterns. In addition
to requirements such as coming up with comprehensive plans that focus
development in urban growth areas, the GMA requires the following of local
jurisdictions:
RCW 36.70A.070: Pertaining to mandatory elements of each jurisdiction’s
Comprehensive Plan:
…”Each comprehensive plan shall include a plan, scheme, or design for each
of the following:

(6) A transportation element that implements, and is consistent with, the
land use element.

multimodal level of service in king county

(B) Level of service standards for all locally owned arterials and transit
routes to serve as a gauge to judge performance of the system. These
standards should be regionally coordinated;
(C) For state-owned transportation facilities, level of service standards
for highways, as prescribed in chapters 47.06 and 47.80 RCW, to
gauge the performance of the system. The purposes of reflecting level
of service standards for state highways in the local comprehensive
plan are to monitor the performance of the system, to evaluate
improvement strategies, and to facilitate coordination between the
county’s or city’s six-year street, road, or transit program and the office of
financial management’s ten-year investment program. The concurrency
requirements of (b) of this subsection do not apply to transportation
facilities and services of statewide significance except for counties
consisting of islands whose only connection to the mainland are state
highways or ferry routes. In these island counties, state highways
and ferry route capacity must be a factor in meeting the concurrency
requirements in (b) of this subsection;
(D) Specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance locally
owned transportation facilities or services that are below an established
level of service standard;
(E) Forecasts of traffic for at least ten years based on the adopted land
use plan to provide information on the location, timing, and capacity
needs of future growth;
(F) Identification of state and local system needs to meet current and
future demands. Identified needs on state-owned transportation facilities
must be consistent with the statewide multimodal transportation plan
required under chapter 47.06 RCW;
After adoption of the comprehensive plan by jurisdictions required to
plan or who choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, local jurisdictions
must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development
approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally
owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

3.0 local guidance

14

in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, unless
transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts
of development are made concurrent with the development. These
strategies may include increased public transportation service, ride
sharing programs, demand management, and other transportation
systems management strategies. For the purposes of this subsection
(6), “concurrent with the development” means that improvements or
strategies are in place at the time of development, or that a financial
commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies
within six years….” (Washington State Legislature)
Washington State Growth Management Act, LOS and Concurrency
Requirements
As discussed in the introduction to this Guide, local governments planning
under the GMA are required to establish concurrency systems and LOS
standards within their Comprehensive Plans. These systems and standards
ultimately serve as the framework for permitting development and identifying
deficiencies in the transportation system. If transportation infrastructure
can remain concurrent with development by maintaining the adopted LOS,
a future development may be permitted. The GMA requires denial of a
proposed development, however, if its impacts would result in LOS dropping
below the adopted standards. That said, if the jurisdiction’s LOS standards
only pertain to automobiles, then building a Complete Street may be at odds
with the GMA legal requirements (if it reduces the automobile LOS for the
respective facility).
Cities and counties are also required under the Regulatory Concurrency
requirement of the GMA to adopt six-year capital facilities plans with the
inclusion of measurable LOS standards for specific types of capital facilities.
As part of their capital facilities plans, local jurisdictions are required to
estimate capacities and forecast future needs for all facilities covered in their
plans.
The Issues
Despite the GMA’s best intentions to discourage sprawling development and
promote transportation alternatives, the level of service and transportation
multimodal level of service in king county

concurrency requirements can effectively contradict theses goals. Because
the majority of communities planning under the GMA framework utilize
traditional LOS measures and standards, requiring cities to maintain these
standards can encourage the development of auto-oriented streets and autooriented land use patterns. With the measures of LOS limited to automobile
traffic congestion, maintaining adopted LOS standards typically means
adding automobile capacity, which is inconsistent with efforts to promote
a multimodal transportation system and reduce environmental impacts
(Comeau, 2009).
An example of a city experiencing difficulties with the contradictory nature
of these regulations comes from the Whatcom County city of Bellingham.
Bellingham recognized that the structure of its LOS framework was not
allowing it to permit development in a highly developable corridor because
it wasn’t able to add additional capacity to the roadway. While significant
development potential remained along this corridor, due to GMA LOS and
concurrency requirements, the city had to impose a building moratorium
along the corridor that lasted for nine months. Consequently, the city has
developed a multimodal LOS and concurrency framework that will allow it to
consider LOS for other modes of transportation as part of its accepted LOS
standards when permitting development.
The LOS standards adopted by local jurisdictions are critical to establishing
a network of Complete Streets. If a city’s LOS standards only reflect vehicle
capacity and demand, and fail to incorporate the effects to other modes
of transportation, the types of projects that receive funding will be biased
toward those that only improve automobile LOS (Municipal Research and
Services Center of Washington). Moreover, cities may be required to
dedicate significant resources to roadway expansion projects in order to
maintain their adopted LOS standards.
While the GMA requires cities to adopt LOS standards and ensure
transportation concurrency when permitting development, it is up to the
local jurisdiction to determine what those LOS standards look like. The only
requirements to this end are that the LOS standards should be regionally
coordinated. The city of Bellingham realized after years of working with
conventional volume-to-capacity LOS standards based on the Highway

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

3.0 local guidance

15

Capacity Manual that it wasn’t possible to promote urban infill development
while maintaining existing LOS standards. In order to meet the state law
without developing an entirely new measurement methodology, the city
council adopted a policy that allowed for an LOS of “F” on specific arterials.
In 2008, the city adopted a new methodology for multimodal transportation
concurrency, based on person trips available by concurrency service area.
The city continues to meet the legal requirements under the GMA, but has
much more flexibility in its transportation planning and project design. See
Bellingham Municipal Code, Section 13.70, “Multi-modal Transportation
Concurrency Requirements” (Comeau, 2009).

King Co unty: Co untywide Level of Service
Fra mework Guiding Principles
The following Countywide Level of Service Framework Guiding Principles
were adopted by the Growth Management Planning Council on July 21,
1993 in response to Countywide Planning Policy T-4. They are provided as
advisory guidelines for local jurisdictions to consider as they develop level of
service standards (King County, 2010).

Develop regional LOS standards and thresholds: Local jurisdictions, the
state, and transit agencies should work with the Puget Sound Regional
Council (PSRC) to develop LOS standards for regional facilities.
Average arterial LOS: Jurisdictions will determine the appropriate areas
or corridors to measure LOS.
Vary LOS standards by land use or growth management objectives:
The LOS standard should vary by differing levels of development
patterns and growth management objectives. For example, lower arterial
standards that tolerate more congestion should be established for Urban
Centers. Transit LOS standards may also vary based upon population and
employment densities.
Support the Countywide land use vision: Each jurisdiction should devise
their LOS approach in ways that support the Countywide land use vision.
Develop a nonmotorized LOS component: Local jurisdictions should
develop a nonmotorized component of their LOS standard. For
example, jurisdictions may use a checklist that indicates whether or not
fundamental nonmotorized policies, standards, and facilities are in place.

Use a multi-modal LOS approach: Jurisdictions should use a multi-modal
approach for long-range transportation planning. Instead of relying on
traditional measurements for passenger cars, new LOS standards should
encourage the use of transit, transportation demand management, and
nonmotorized travel.

Develop (supply-side) transit performance measures: METRO should
develop supply-side transit LOS measures that include service availability
and service quality.
Develop demand-side transit performance measures: In order to achieve
non-single occupancy vehicle mode split goals, jurisdictions should
adopt policies and implement actions that support transit investments.
multimodal level of service in king county

Determine LOS thresholds at the local level: Each jurisdiction will
determine LOS thresholds and weights appropriate for their jurisdiction
that are consistent with the Countywide vision.

Movin g Toward a Multimodal LOS and
Concurrency Framework in King County
In our region, three cities stand out in their multimodal concurrency planning:
Redmond, Bellevue and Kirkland. In 2006, the City of Kirkland set a goal
to establish level of service standards that encourage development of a

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

3.0 local guidance

16

multimodal transportation system. In 2008, downtown Bellevue was chosen
as the site of a multimodal concurrency pilot project conducted by Puget
Sound Regional Council (PSRC). Finally, in 2009 the City of Redmond went
so far as to adopt a Multimodal Plan-Based Concurrency System to manage
the pace of development while providing transportation improvements for all
users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, drivers and transit riders. This section
of the guide looks at each jurisdiction’s pursuit of multimodal concurrency in
more detail and discusses the differences of each.
Case Study: City of Kirkland
In September of 2006, the City of Kirkland finalized revisions to its
Comprehensive Plan. A sought-after goal of the 2006 update was to
“Establish level of service standards that encourage development of a
multimodal transportation system” (Goal T-5). After much study and
discussion, the City of Kirkland decided that an intersection capacity
technique was the best choice for measuring level of service and developing
level of service standards. Today, Kirkland uses different level of service
standards for different modes of travel.
Vehicular Level of Service
For vehicular level of service, the city has developed an aggregated roadway
level of service measure that averages the capacity of signalized intersections
within a geographic area. This policy establishes a peak-hour level of service
standard for vehicular traffic based on projected 2022 land use and road
networks. It is a two-part standard, based on the ratio of traffic volume to
intersection capacity (V/C) for signalized system intersections.
The two standards for vehicular level of service are:
•

Maximum allowed subarea average V/C for signalized system
intersections in each subarea may not exceed the specific
calculated values.1

1 The level of service standards were calculated using a computerized transportation model shared with Bellevue and Redmond, called the Bellevue-Kirkland-Redmond (BKR) model. The standards are the outcomes of
land use and transportation network choices entered into the model.

multimodal level of service in king county

•

No signalized system intersection may have a V/C greater than
1.40.2

Underlying the standards is the idea that the system is not considered to be
failing if the peak-hour is congested. Use of peak-hour for measuring level of
service is standard in the region and implies that traffic will flow better during
the rest of the day.
Transit Level of Service
Mode split is used as the level of service standard for transit. By the year
2022, the City of Kirkland strives to achieve a transit mode split of 35
percent. This standard is expressed in terms of a desired percentage of
peak-hour home to work trips taken via transit. The 35 percent transit mode
split represents a long-term goal for the city to achieve through providing
improved transit accessibility, transportation demand management (TDM)
systems, efficient nonmotorized systems, shops and services located close
to home, and other strategies to encourage transit use rather than singleoccupancy vehicle (SOV) driving.
Nonmotorized Level of Service
Nonmotorized level of service is expressed in terms of miles of completed
bicycle and pedestrian facilities and number of complete corridors, and
reflects the desire of the city to create an interconnected system of bicycle
and pedestrian routes. The existing system has deficiencies and gaps that
the proposed standards strive to complete. The decided standards for
bicycle and pedestrian facilities are based on the priority routes indicated in
the Nonmotorized Transportation Plan (NMTP) and the city’s Transportation
Program Evaluation Criteria.
As identified in the NMTP, Kirkland strives to achieve a level of service
standard by 2022 of:
•

59 miles of bicycle facilities.

2 A V/C of less than 1.0 means that the volume at the intersection is less than capacity. If the V/C is equal to
1.0, the intersection’s volume and capacity are equal. When the V/C is greater than 1.0, volume has exceeded
capacity. As the V/C increases, the congestion at the intersection increases and the level of service gets worse.
Kirkland strives to keep V/C ratios under 1.30 whenever possible, with a maximum V/C ratio set at 1.40.

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

3.0 local guidance

17

•

155 miles of pedestrian facilities.

•

Six east-west and four north-south completed pedestrian
corridors.

•

Four east-west and two north-south completed bicycle corridors.

The City considers the following factors when determining the location of
new bicycle and pedestrian facilities:
•

Discussion
Although very high, the V/C ratios in Kirkland’s vehicular level of service
standard are acceptable to the city, as is typically the case with other
jurisdictions, because there is often a limited amount of funding available to
improve the ratio. In addition, Kirkland recognizes that it is not possible for
a city to build its way out of congestion, even with unlimited funds. Road
widening has been shown to have quality-of-life impacts that many Kirkland
residents find unacceptable.
Additionally, the vehicular standards set forth by Kirkland are based on
congestion becoming worse in the future. Kirkland’s Comprehensive Plan
states, “The need to move to alternative modes becomes all the more clear
when we can see the peak-hour vehicular level of service forecasted for the
future” (page IX-15).
With regards to the transit and nonmotorized level of service standards,
Kirkland will need to reevaluate its metrics once the transit mode split is
reached and the nonmotorized network is built out and completed. For
transit, this may mean setting the mode split bar even higher for future

multimodal level of service in king county

years. Likewise for nonmotorized level of service, it may mean increasing the
number of miles of non-motorized facilities to be built by a specified year,
as per a future NMTP update. However, for both transit and nonmotorized
modes, it may also mean shifting to a calculated level of service – similar
to that outlined in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual – that looks at the
performance of existing segments, intersections and facilities.

In 2008, the Washington State Legislature allocated funding for the Puget
Sound Regional Council (PSRC) to conduct a pilot project demonstrating
the process for analyzing multimodal concurrency within a regional growth
center. PSRC, in conjunction with King County Metro, selected downtown
Bellevue as a case study with the intent of developing a scalable multimodal
concurrency measurement and analysis framework that other jurisdictions
could employ to manage multimodal travel demand and potentially
incorporate into their concurrency management systems.
The focus of the pilot project was multimodal concurrency within the longrange planning process, coined “Planning Concurrency” by the project team.
In contrast to the existing “Regulatory Concurrency” that typically has a fiveto six-year horizon, the longer horizon associated with Planning Concurrency
allows the ability to incorporate multimodal levels of service into the local
and regional long-range planning efforts.
Regulatory, Planning and Multimodal Concurrency
Jurisdictions use Regulatory Concurrency to evaluate the ability of a planned
transportation system to accommodate additional travel generated by a
proposed development. The proposed development may only proceed to
construction if the jurisdiction determines that the additional trips produced
by the development would not violate the level of service standards

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

3.0 local guidance

18

established through the jurisdiction’s comprehensive planning process.
However, as this Guide makes clear, many cities still have level of service
standards that are based on measuring V/C ratios at intersections and that do
not explicitly measure or recognize the capacity provided by carpools, transit
or nonmotorized facilities.
In June 2009, PSRC prepared a report on the downtown Bellevue pilot
project entitled PSRC and City of Bellevue Multimodal Concurrency Pilot
Project. The report found that in growth centers, all modes are needed to
meet travel demand; and that roadway, transit and land use planning need
to be done together and reinforced with investment decisions to ensure that
local growth can be supported.
One intended result of the pilot project was to introduce a new approach to
Regulatory Concurrency that addresses additional modes of travel (bicycle,
pedestrian and transit) and that can be replicated by all Washington state
Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs) and jurisdictions.
The proposed “Planning Concurrency” alternative builds off of future land
use inputs (population and employment) as well as roadway and transit levels
of service, all of which are established through a jurisdiction’s comprehensive
planning process. Forecasted trips are compared with roadway and
transit levels of service to determine gaps in the ability of the planned
transportation system to accommodate estimated demand in each mode.
If a gap is identified, the implementing agency performs a market analysis to
determine if and/or where efficiencies and other improvements in the transit network
can be achieved. Trips that remain un-served by a more efficient and effective
transit network are then accommodated through a “multimodal concurrency”
approach that utilizes a variety of strategies, including TDM, changes in land use,
bicycle or pedestrian connectivity improvements, and roadway capacity expansion.3
Multimodal concurrency thus serves as a process for incorporating a multimodal level
of service that can be used in either Regulatory of Planning Concurrency processes.

3 While road widening has quality-of-life impacts that some communities – such as Kirkland, discussed above –
find unacceptable, the prioritization of one strategy type over another remains a local policy decision.

multimodal level of service in king county

Method Overview
The proposed Planning Concurrency analysis approach occurs in three broad
steps, which are described in limited detail below. This section focuses
specifically on the suggested evaluation metrics proposed in Step 1, as these
are most relevant to the discussion of multimodal level of service metrics and
standards.
Step 1: Concurrency Evaluation
In the first step, forecast travel demand is compared with the planned
capacity of the transportation system. If the analysis concludes that the
transportation system is adequate, then the proposed development can be
constructed and no further work is required. In its report, the project team
suggested potential measures for alternative modes of travel, discussed
below.
Suggested roadway level of service metrics:
•

Highway Capacity Manual intersection-based level of service

•

Highway Capacity Manual roadway segment-based level of service

Suggested transit level of service metrics:
•

Load factor – average ratio of load to capacity
»»

Capacity (supply) – seats in time period in study area

»»

Load (demand) – riders in time period in study area

•

Speed – average transit speed on all transit segments within the
city boundary

•

Headway – average headway on all routes serving the study area

•

Reliability – roadway level of service in study area (as proxy) in time
period

•

Service coverage – percent of transit service area that is

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

3.0 local guidance

19
»»

Posted vehicle speed limit

»»

Presence of a buffer between pedestrian space and vehicle
lanes

Presence of off-road bicycle facilities,5 expressed as the ratio of
land area in the total quarter-mile buffers around all off-road,
nonmotorized facilities to total land area within the study area

»»

Street width

»»

Presence of mid-block crossings

The ratio of centerline miles of roadway with bicycle amenities6
to centerline miles of roadway without bicycle amenities within
the study area

»»

Presence of crosswalks and pedestrian amenities including
wayfinding

»»

Topographical challenges

accessible where transit service area is defined by the desired
type of possible service4
Suggested bicycle level of service metrics:
•

•

•

Other factors to be considered:

Step 2: Gap/Problem Identification

»»

Posted vehicle speed limit

»»

Proportion of heavy vehicles in the roadway traffic volume

If Step 1 finds that concurrency has not been met, a gap must be determined
between the originally proposed future transportation system and a scenario
that would meet concurrency.

»»

Connectedness of facilities to open bicycle use (including
multimodal connections)

»»

Availability of end-of-trip facilities such as bicycle lockers and
showers

Suggested pedestrian level of service metrics:

Step 3: Strategy and Design Testing

•

Presence of sidewalks, measured as the total ratio of block faces
with complete, passable sidewalks to the total number of block
faces within the study area

•

Intersection density expressed as a ratio of walkable intersections
per square kilometer in the study area

•

Other factors to be considered:

4 Example: Three housing units per acre for hourly bus service. Accessibility would be measured as a quartermile network buffer from all active bus stops and a half-mile buffer for rail.
5 Defined as a facility physically inaccessible to motor vehicles, even if it lies within general roadway right-ofway.
6 Where bikes share the general roadway, including amenities such as bike lanes and wide shoulders.

multimodal level of service in king county

The gap is then translated into units such as person trips or other quantifiable
terms that would allow scenario testing to be conducted under Step 3.
Problems in the system arise either because too many people are trying to
use a mode (a person-trip gap) or a given proportion of the system is simply
inadequate to support many trips at all (a quality of service gap).7

Finally, transit, TDM, bicycle, pedestrian and roadway strategies are designed
and tested to close the gaps and meet concurrency requirements. The
design of a set of future transportation investments to meet concurrency
across all dimensions should integrate all individual modal efforts into one
comprehensive picture.8

7 Methods for identifying gaps – along with a downtown Bellevue case study – are discussed in more detail in
the pilot project report.
8 Methods of modal strategy design – along with a downtown Bellevue case study – are discussed in more
detail in the pilot project report.

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

3.0 local guidance

20

Discussion

Resources

In the past several years, the Washington State Legislature has made several
changes to the Regulatory Concurrency statute of the GMA; however,
there has not been a comprehensive rewrite of the Regulatory Concurrency
requirements that clearly states how multiple modes of transportation can
be or should be incorporated into concurrency. In fact, no formal framework
under the GMA exists that would ensure roadway and transit level of service
standards in local comprehensive plans are coordinated with transit agency
short- and long-range planning. Such a legal framework could help ensure
that growth centers such as Bellevue, Redmond and Kirkland are adequately
served by the transportation systems needed to make development work.

PSRC and City of Bellevue Multimodal Concurrency Project – A Special
Report to the Joint Transportation Committee, prepared by Puget Sound
Regional Council in consultation with City of Bellevue and King County
Metro, June 2009.

PSRC, King County Metro and the City of Bellevue have developed a good
initial framework for evaluating the level of service of alternative modes in
our region, but more needs to be done. For example, additional pedestrian
and bicycle metrics should be explored as more innovative infrastructure
treatments are identified and implemented on our local and regional
roadways.
Furthermore, as identified in the pilot program report, additional exploration
into how the proposed metrics respond to a range of input may be necessary
for success of the multimodal level of service framework. For example, the
transit metric output is based on a ridership assumption. Analyzing how this
output changes based on different assumptions would give jurisdictions more
information on which to base a transit concurrency standard.
Although this framework for evaluating multimodal level of service is
more prescriptive than the City of Kirkland’s level of service guidelines for
transit, bicycles and pedestrians, it is still not clear how to “grade” the
level of service for a specific mode and set standards for that mode within
a jurisdiction. The framework was developed before the 2010 Highway
Capacity Manual, which includes clearly defined algorithms for evaluating
modes of travel. Perhaps as future research and expansion of the downtown
Bellevue multimodal concurrency pilot project is conducted, the model
will grow stronger and more useful across our region, and ultimately get
incorporated into the concurrency requirements of the GMA.
multimodal level of service in king county

Case Study: City of Redmond
Redmond’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP) was established in 2005 and
included a Transportation Facilities Plan (TFP) based on Redmond’s 2022
vision for a land use/transportation balance. In June 2009, Fehr & Peers
prepared a report for the City of Redmond entitled City of Redmond
Multimodal Plan-Based Concurrency System. The report outlined a tool for
managing the pace of development in the city while providing transportation
improvements for all roadway users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, drivers
and transit riders. This new concurrency system was developed as part of a
multi-year planning process to update the Redmond Comprehensive Plan
approved by the Redmond City Council in 2004.
In October 2009, the City of Redmond adopted its Multimodal PlanBased Concurrency System. The overall concept for the new concurrency
system stemmed from the TMP analysis of 2022 land use (as contained in
the Comprehensive Plan) and the 2022 TMP. The TMP concluded that in
2022, the City’s transportation system would be near capacity in the PM
peak hour of travel. To maintain concurrency, the City determined that it
must appropriately pace land development with multimodal transportation
improvements and strategies.
As noted throughout this Guide, conventional planning practice determines
transportation impacts by calculating the number of automobile trips that
will be generated by forecasted land use. Using a multimodal approach, the
new plan-based concurrency system relies on a mode-neutral measure known
as the “mobility unit,” which is measured in terms of person miles traveled
rather than vehicle miles traveled or automobile delay.

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

3.0 local guidance

21

Testing for Transportation Concurrency
As part of the concurrency review process for a proposed development,
each proposal must be analyzed to determine the number of mobility units
expected to be generated by the development. The demand for mobility
units is then compared to the available mobility units within the city’s Six-Year
Program, as required by the GMA’s Regulatory Concurrency requirements. If
sufficient mobility units are available, then the development is considered to
be concurrent. However, if the development is deemed not concurrent, then
the applicant must provide additional mobility units of capacity or wait until
sufficient mobility units become available.9
Under the transportation concurrency test, city staff calculates the net new
mobility unit demand based on existing and proposed land use information
provided by the applicant in a Transportation Concurrency Application.
This land use information is used along with a Development Mobility Unit
Calculator to determine the existing mobility unit demand, new mobility unit
demand and net new mobility unit demand.
Calculating Person Miles Traveled
Two methods are used to calculate person miles traveled in Redmond. The
first method uses what is called the Bellevue-Kirkland-Redmond (BKR) model
of travel demand along with the PSRC travel model to produce composite
forecasts of person trip by mode.10 The models are also used to calculate
trip lengths by mode.
The second method used to calculate mobility units is termed the “personmile calculator.” This method uses a spreadsheet tool to combine
travel characteristics from the travel demand model and trip generation
characteristics from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Report (7th Edition). Person miles are calculated using a multistep process:

9 Mobility units become available as additional transportation projects are funded and committed by the City
within its Six-Year Program (e.g. Transportation Improvement Program and Capital Investment Program).
10 The 2022 BKR demand model was originally developed for the City’s TMP. This included the forecast growth
in land use from 2005 to 2022, plus network changes expected by 2022.

multimodal level of service in king county

Step A: Identify PM peak hour vehicle trip generation rates for generalized
land use categories using ITE data.
Step B: Vehicle trips are converted to person trips by applying an average
vehicle occupancy rate and a mode split percentage. Average vehicle
occupancy defines how many people are in the vehicle, and the mode
split defines the proportion of people traveling in vehicles to total persons
traveling via all modes. Since the ITE data are based on national survey
results, often in suburban settings, the City of Redmond study team applied
a conservative average vehicle occupancy rate of 1.12 and a vehicular mode
split of 90 percent.
Step C: Calculate an average trip length factor for each land use type,
varying by land use as documented in the Redmond Transportation Impact
Fee Program (updated 2007).
Person miles are the product of person trips (Step B) and trip length (Step C).
Person miles, calculated by land use type, are added to produce a citywide
estimate of total person miles. Application of this process is discussed
in detail in the Fehr & Peers report, and is not necessarily relevant to this
Guide’s focused discussion of multimodal level of service.
Discussion
Although Redmond’s approach to concurrency is a departure from the typical
concurrency system currently in place in Washington state, the Redmond
system meets the intent of concurrency as laid out in the GMA.
Redmond’s system was described at the beginning of the section as “mode
neutral,” in that it does not look at specific modes in the way Bellevue’s
Multimodal Concurrency Pilot Project did, or – even to a lesser degree – the
City of Kirkland’s multimodal level of service laid out in its Comprehensive
Plan. Instead, mode split defines the proportion of people in vehicles
compared to total persons traveling in Redmond. Redmond uses a 90
percent SOV rate, which reflects of national averages. It also matches the
2005 SOV rate included within Redmond’s travel model, validated for 2005.
Redmond and many other Puget Sound cities plan to have much lower
SOV percentages in the future – Redmond’s target is 70 percent. The city,

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

3.0 local guidance

22

however, believes that the value used in their analysis seems to be consistent
with national averages inherent in the ITE trip generation data.
With regard to SOV assumptions, a specific traffic study and modal count
would potentially strengthen the person-mile calculator and produce
different results. Certainly as time goes on – and if environmental factors
such as gas prices continue to shift mode splits toward alternative means of
travel (transit, biking, walking) – the 90 percent SOV rate will no longer be
accurate and may produce unintended results with regards to concurrency.
The overall analysis in place, however, appears to be a straightforward
method of tracking concurrency in Redmond and making adjustments to
ensure that the city meets its concurrency standards now and in the future.
Resources
City of Redmond Multimodal Plan-Based Concurrency System, prepared for
the City of Redmond by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, June 2009.
City of Redmond Multimodal Plan-Based Concurrency System –
Transportation Concurrency Administrative Guidelines, City of Redmond,
October 2009.

multimodal level of service in king county

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

This chapter will summarize some of the leading level of service models, with
special emphasis on the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. The HCM 2010
provides the most recent and possibly the most comprehensive model for
calculating multimodal LOS as an integrated framework. The HCM 2010
multimodal LOS was developed through extensive research conducted as
part of the NCHRP Project 3-70, discussed in greater detail in the Appendix
of this Guide.
Models such as the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM),
the Bicycle LOS (BLOS) model and the Pedestrian LOS (PLOS) model are
specific to their respective modes and do not allow for an easy comparison
across modes. They still provide, however, a comprehensive framework for
evaluating LOS for these modes.

Highway Capacity Manual

Overview
Various models have been developed to calculate level of service (LOS) for
various modes of transportation. According to a “state-of-the practice”
survey conducted through National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) 3-70, there are three major professional manuals typically
referenced by public agencies when evaluating multimodal highway level of
service. These manuals are the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Florida’s
Quality/Level of Service Handbook and the Transit Capacity and Quality of
Service Manual.
While various multimodal LOS models exist, traditional approaches to
evaluating transportation system performance focus primarily on measuring
automobile LOS. The conventional methodology for calculating automobile
LOS is detailed in the HCM 2000. While the HCM 2000 includes LOS
measures for bicycles, pedestrians and transit, surveys have indicated that the
recommended methodologies are not entirely applicable to these modes.

multimodal level of service in king county

23

The Highway Capacity Manual by the Transportation Research Board (TRB)
is commonly used as the transportation engineering and planning standard
in evaluating transportation facilities. According to the TRB, it is a division
of the National Research Council, “which serves as an independent adviser
to the federal government and others on scientific and technical questions
of national importance.” The HCM is one of the most commonly used
manuals for LOS guidance, specifically for computing automobile LOS.
The HCM provides LOS measures, thresholds and calculation procedures
for auto, transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes. The four transit LOS
measures provided in the HCM 2000 are adapted from the six presented
in the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. The Pedestrian and
Bicycle LOS measures are based on research conducted for the Federal
Highway Administration (Rouphail, Recommended Procedures for Chapter
13, Pedestrians, of the Highway Capacity Manual, 1999 and Rouphail,
Recommended Procedures for Chapter 14, Bicycles, of the Highway Capacity
Manual, 1999).
The primary difference between the HCM 2000 and HCM 2010 (relevant to
this Guide) is the multimodal LOS framework included in the HCM 2010.
Because the HCM 2000 and its LOS procedure is currently the most widely

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

used version, however,
this section will provide
a summary of its
contents as it relates to
multimodal LOS and the
weaknesses associated
with its recommended
approach from a
multimodal perspective.

Table 2: HCM 2000 LOS Criteria for Urban Street
Mode

LOS Criterion

Comments (NCHRP 616)

Auto

Mean auto speed for through traffic

Only applies to arterials, not collector or local streets

Transit

Hours of daily service, reliability

These are the two segment LOS criteria for availability and comfort and convenience

Bicycle

Mean speed of bicycle through traffic

Applies only if designated bicycle lanes are present

Pedestrian

Mean speed of pedestrian through traffic

Applies only if sidewalk is present

Source: NCHRP Report 616

Highway Capacity
Manual 2000
The HCM 2000, which provides LOS procedures for auto,
transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes, is the most
widely used manual for calculating LOS. In contrast
to the HCM 2010, the HCM 2000 considers the four
modes separately. The HCM 2010 integrates all
modes into one chapter, making it easier to make
comparisons between different cross-sections. The
HCM 2000 procedures are also based primarily
on speed and delay. The HCM 2010 integrates
qualitative factors that are more appropriate to
determining the level of service provided for
bicyclists, pedestrians and transit users.

LOS F (Example
output, HCM
2000)

The Pedestrian LOS measures included in the HCM 2000
are based on research conducted for the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) (Rouphail, Recommended Procedures
for Chapter 13, Pedestrians, of the Highway Capacity
Manual, 1999). The Pedestrian LOS analysis is computed
by counting pedestrians who cross a point over a certain
period of time (typically 15-minute intervals). This results
in what has been termed a “flow rate.” For sidewalks, the
estimation model is based on space per pedestrian whereas
at intersections, Pedestrian LOS is based on delay. Although
there are disadvantages to this model, the LOS is easy to

multimodal level of service in king county

24

calculate and collect data for. One of the key disadvantages
to the model is that it does not take into account many
physical, environmental and psychological factors that
influence the pedestrian experience. The image on this page
Table 3: HCM 2000 Bicycle LOS for Bicycle Lanes on Urban StreetsPedestrian LOS for sidewalks
LOS

Average Bicycle Speed

LOS

Space/Pedestrian

A

>14 mph

A

>60 square feet

B

9-14

B

40-60

C

7-9

C

24-40

D

5-7

D

15-24

E

4-5

E

8-15

F

<4

F

≤8

Source: NCHRP Report 616

illustrates Pedestrian LOS scores based on the HCM 2000
methodologies. Under this approach, a sidewalk with no
pedestrians may receive an LOS “A.” This representation
shows how key quality of service factors are omitted from
the HCM 2000 procedures (NY DCP, Transportation Division,
2006).
The Bicycle LOS measures included in the HCM are also
based on research conducted by the FHWA (Rouphail,
Recommended Procedures for Chapter 14, Bicycles, of the
Highway Capacity Manual, 1999), providing calculation

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

4.0 multimodal level of service models

25

procedures for off-street paths and designated bicycle lanes using mean
bicycle speed and mean control delay. The bicycle service measures
include average travel delay, average travel speed and hindrance. Table 2
provides the HCM 2000 Criteria for Urban Streets (including comments from
NCHRP Report 616), and Table 3 displays the LOS categories for bicycle and
pedestrian modes as incorporated into the HCM 2000.

•

Major critiques to the HCM 2000 include the following:
•

The LOS measures incorporated into the HCM 2000 are not
based on traveler perception surveys and cannot be compared
to measures included in the TCQSM and FDOT manuals.

Highway Capacity Manual: 2010
The HCM 2010 represents the fifth major revision to the Highway Capacity
Manual. The significant changes to this version include the integrated
multimodal approach, as well as the inclusion of new research and an
increased emphasis on alternative tools. The multimodal framework is based
on the research conducted through NCHRP 3-70, as described in the section
above. The organization of the HCM 2010 provides an integration of material
on bicycle, pedestrian, transit and automobile modes into several chapters,
rather than stand-alone chapters for each mode. Most content pertaining to
analysis of urban street facilities can be found in Chapters 16, 17 and 18

•

Each mode is treated separately in the HCM 2000. For example,
the HCM 2000 does not provide a methodology to measure the
intersection LOS for all users, but rather relies on performance
measures that are unique to each mode. Pedestrian LOS is
based on square feet/person and doesn’t consider the delay
experienced at intersections for crossing pedestrians.

Automobile LOS is based on vehicle delay, which means that a
vehicle with one occupant receives just as much influence as a
vehicle with 50 occupants (such as a transit vehicle). Therefore,
improvements that benefit more than one SOV drivers would
have greater influence on improving LOS than an improvement
that benefitted a transit bus with 50 occupants (Transportation
Research Board, 2008).

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

4.0 multimodal level of service models
Findings from focus groups were also influential in developing the
multimodal framework included in the HCM 2010. Key findings included:
•

Many jurisdictions are not required to perform multimodal
analyses and therefore typically do not perform them.

•

Jurisdictions that do want to conduct bicycle and pedestrian
analyses do not find the HCM 2000 capacity-based measures
useful.

•

Most bicycle and pedestrian facilities do not have capacity
issues, such that the HCM 2000 procedures are not applicable.

The HCM 2000 multimodal LOS methods focus on speed, delay and space.
The research conducted through NCHRP Report 3-70 found that these
are not the key factors in determining the quality of service provided for
bicyclists and pedestrians sharing a roadway environment. Factors such as
automobile volumes and speeds are of higher importance to bicycle and
pedestrian quality of service. Given these research findings, the HCM 2010
considers a broader range of factors for analyzing bicycle and pedestrian
levels of service.
The HCM 2010 provides a quality of service approach, focusing on the perception
of how well a facility operates from the traveler’s perspective. The methodology
allows for evaluation of intermodal interactions and trade-offs (see Table 4).
Multimodal LOS, as defined in the HCM 2010, measures the degree to which
the urban street design and operations meet the needs of each mode’s users.
The methods for calculating the multimodal LOS for urban arterials result in
an LOS for each mode, and not a combined LOS score (see Table 5).
Table 5: Conceptual Multimodal LOS Results (HCM 2010)
Mode

AM Peak

PM Peak

Auto

C

E

Transit

B

C

Bicycle

C

C

Pedestrian

D

D

26
Introduction to the HCM 2010 Methods
The guidance included in the HCM 2010 manual (as it relates to multimodal
LOS) covers methodologies for evaluating the capacity and quality of
service provided to distinct roadway user groups. The manual includes
quality of service calculations as well as an array of performance-based
procedures. There are three analysis levels for which the methodologies can
be applied: operational, design, and planning and preliminary engineering.
The operational analysis is the most detailed, with the greatest amount of
information to calculate. The design analysis requires information about
traffic and signalization conditions, and the planning level analysis requires
only fundamental types of data.
The multimodal LOS equations are divided into segments, signalized
intersections, unsignalized intersections and facilities. Segment and facility
LOS scores are calculated for all four modes, and signalized intersection
scores are calculated for automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians. Table 6
illustrates the service measures as included in the HCM 2010.
Table 6: HCM 2010 Service Measures
System Element

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

4.0 multimodal level of service models
HCM 2010 Methods: Pedestrian LOS Model
There are several environmental characteristics that contribute to the
experience of walking. As described in Chapter 3 of the HCM 2010, these
factors include comfort, convenience, safety, security and the economics of
the walkway system. The Pedestrian LOS model is designed to consider
these factors.

The pedestrian LOS Model is based on the following equation:
Pedestrian Facility LOS = (0.318*Segment Score + 0.220* Intersection
Score + 1.606) * (RCDF)
The Segment LOS score is weighted at 0.318, and the intersection score is
weighted at 0.22. The constant, 1.606, represents the understanding that
the LOS score starts in the LOS A range and increases based on the other
factors. The RCDF variable represents the Roadway Crossing Difficulty
Factor, which takes into account the difficulty of making a mid-block crossing.
HCM 2010 Methods: Pedestrian LOS (urban street segments)
Factors include:

Cross-street motor vehicle volumes
and speeds (-)
Crossing length (-)

•

1,000 peak-hour vehicles

•

Average pedestrian delay (-)

•

Two lanes crossed

•

Right-turn channelizing island
presence (+)

•

30 feet crossing distance

•

10% yield rate

HCM 2010 Methods: Pedestrian LOS
(unsignalized intersections)
The Pedestrian LOS at unsignalized intersections
provides an estimate of crossing delay. The LOS
equation is based on four variables:

Outside travel lane width (+)

•

Traffic volumes

•

Bicycle lane/shoulder width (+)

•

Crossing distances

•

Buffer presence (e.g. on-street parking, street trees) (+)

•

Number of lanes crossed

•

Sidewalk presence and width (+)

•

Motorist yield rate

•

Volume and speed of motor vehicle traffic in outside lane (-)

HCM 2010 Methods: Bicycle LOS Model

•

Pedestrian density considered separately

Factors affecting bicyclists include proximity to
motor vehicles, speed of traffic, percent heavy
vehicles and pavement condition. These factors,
along with others, are incorporated in the HCM
2010 Bicycle LOS Models as follows.

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

4.0 multimodal level of service models
The Bicycle LOS Model is based on the following equation:
Bicycle Facility LOS = (0.160*Segment Score + 0.011*e(Intersection
Score) + 0.035 * Driveways and Unsignalized Intersections per Mile +
2.85)
The Segment LOS score is weighted at 0.160, and the intersection score is
weighted at 0.011. The constant, 2.85, represents the understanding that
the Bicycle LOS score starts in the LOS C range and increases based on the
other factors. The facility LOS score also considers the presence of driveways
and unsignalized intersection conflicts along the corridor.

different, it may not precisely reflect the full
spectrum of bicyclist perceptions. Second,
the model does not include slope as a factor,
nor does it capture emerging bicycle facility
types like shared lane markings, colored
pavement, bicycle boxes or cycle tracks. As
communities look toward applying these
new facility types, adjustments to the facility
type weights within the Bicycle LOS models
might be necessary.
HCM 2010 Methods: Transit LOS Model

A couple of notes should be made about the Bicycle LOS model. First, it
is based on the perceptions of a typical cyclist. Given that each bicyclist is
multimodal level of service in king county

28

A new Transit LOS model was developed for
the HCM 2010 to provide a single measure
that facilitates comparisons with other
modes, where impacts might exist. The
Transit LOS model covers buses, streetcars
and street-running light-rail. The model was
developed around findings from on-board
survey results, which showed that frequency,
reliability and wait time were the most
important factors. The Transit LOS model
inputs are:
•

HCM 2010 Example Applications
Example 1
The example displayed on the following pages was included in a
Transportation Research Board (TRB) presentation regarding the new bicycle,
pedestrian and transit methods and concepts included in the HCM 2010.
The presentation can be accessed at the TRB website. The example below
is intended to illustrate how comparisons can be made between roadway
designs using the multimodal LOS framework and how the LOS calculations
can help determine the benefit gained from specific improvements
(Vandehey, Ryus, & Foster, New Multi-modal Urban Streets Methodology:
Pedestrian, Bike and Transit Methods).

multimodal level of service in king county

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

Findings: The Facility LOS score was improved by adding sidewalks, bike lanes and on-street parking in addition to the signal changes. Because the addition of facilities resulted in a wider crossing, the RCDF was negatively affected.

multimodal level of service in king county

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Seattle & King County

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Seattle & King County

4.0 multimodal level of service models

32

HCM Application: Transit
EX: Transit No-Build

EX: Transit Build

Transit LOS Score = 6.0 – 1.50 * 1.95 + 0.15 * 3.85 = 3.65

(D)

Transit LOS Score = 6.0 – 1.50 * 2.79 + 0.15 * 3.50 = 2.34

(B)

Findings: Improving service frequency has the most significant impact on the overall score.

Example 2: Evaluating Trade-offs
The following example was included in a presentation from Kittelson and Associates, Inc. pertaining to the multimodal analysis methods in the HCM 2010
(Parks, 2011). The following tables and designs illustrate the LOS outputs based on different roadway design alternatives. This example is intended to
demonstrate the comparative abilities of the multimodal LOS framework in looking at designs and the trade-offs to each mode.
Cross-section Option 1: No Build
Street

Score

LOS

Auto

N/A

F

Transit

3.68

D

Bike

4.75

E

Ped

3.15

C

Change

Cross-section Option 1: Increased Right of Way
Street

Score

LOS

Change

Auto

N/A

F

=

Transit

3.66

D

+

Bike

4.75

E

=

Ped

2.99

C

+

Cross-section Option 2: Removal of Bicycle Lanes
Street

Score

LOS

Change

Auto

N/A

F

=

Transit

3.67

D

+

Bike

5.22

F

-

Ped

3.05

C

+

multimodal level of service in king county

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

4.0 multimodal level of service models

33

Cross-section Option 3: Removal of Travel Lane
Street

Score

LOS

Change

Auto

N/A

F

-

Transit

3.88

D

-

Bike

4.40

E

+

Ped

2.97

C

+

Cross-section Option 4: Reduce Lane/Transit Improvements

Street

Score

LOS

Change

Auto

N/A

F

-

Transit

2.23

B

+

Bike

4.40

E

+

Ped

2.97

C

+

Cross-section Option 5: Access Management
Street

Score

LOS

Change

Auto

N/A

F

=

Transit

3.68

D

=

Bike

3.69

D

+

Ped

3.15

C

=

Overall: Summary of Alternatives
Option

No-Build

Landscaped buffer

No Bike Lanes

Reduced Lanes

Reduced Lanes/Transit
Improvements

Access
Management

Auto

F

F

F

F

F

F

Transit

3.68

3.66

3.67

3.88

2.23

3.68

Bike

4.75

4.75

5.22

4.40

4.40

3.69

Ped

3.15

2.99

3.05

2.97

2.97

3.15

multimodal level of service in king county

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Seattle & King County

4.0 multimodal level of service models

34

FDOT’s Quality/Level of Servic e Handbook

operational models.

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Quality/Level of Service
Handbook has been recognized as a leading application guide, connecting
the nation’s leading automobile, bicycle, pedestrian and transit quality/
level of service evaluation techniques. It provides “planning level” analysis
techniques for LOS calculations at both the facility and segment level.

The FDOT Handbook recommends LOS methods for the following modes:
automobile, bicycle, pedestrian and transit. The Auto LOS recommended in
the FDOT handbook is derived from the Urban Streets chapter of the HCM
2000 (State of Florida Department of Transportation, 2009). FDOT provides
default values for some of the more difficult-to-obtain data (Transportation
Research Board, 2008).

The most recent user guide was published in 2009 (an update to the
nationally recognized 2002 version) and provides guidance for planners,
engineers and decision makers evaluating existing roadway users’ quality/
level of service and forecasting future LOS. The handbook also provides
tools to quantify multimodal level of service within the right-of-way.
Unique to FDOT’s QLOS Handbook is the provision of two LOS estimation
procedures for planning level analysis: a “generalized planning analysis” and
“conceptual planning analysis.” Generalized planning analysis is used for
statewide analyses, initial problem identification and future year analyses.
Conceptual planning is an engineering application to support design
decisions.
The 2002 FDOT Handbook was nationally recognized for its multimodal LOS
structure, which reflected the impacts of improving quality of service for one
mode on the other modes. Similar to the HCM 2010, FDOT’s handbook
does not recommend combining each mode’s LOS into one overall roadway
LOS for the following reasons: (1) no professionally recognized technique
for combining LOS, (2) issues with weighting of the different modes, (3)
determining functional/street type classifications of roadways, and (4) unique
purposes and travel patterns for each mode.
The FDOT Handbook covers both quality and level of service. Quality
of Service refers to user perception of how well a transportation system
operates, and Level of Service provides a quantification of quality of service,
typically along the A – F grading scale. The methodologies used in the
FDOT Handbook are consistent with those found in the other leading LOS
manuals: the HCM 2000, the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual,
and the Bicycle and Pedestrian LOS Models. The goal of FDOT’s handbook,
however, is to provide a complete planning application for the existing
multimodal level of service in king county

The Transit LOS model incorporated into FDOT’s handbook is based on the
Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM), developed by the
Transportation Research Board in 2003 and discussed in the next section.
The Bicycle LOS model incorporated in the FDOT Handbook is based
on the Bicycle LOS model initially developed by Bruce Landis of Sprinkle
Consulting, Inc. in 1997, discussed on page 36. The model is based on five
variables, in order of importance:
•

Average effective width of the outside through lane

•

Motorized vehicle volumes

•

Motorized vehicle speeds

•

Heavy truck volumes

•

Pavement conditions

The Bicycle LOS equation utilizes both logarithmic and exponential functions
that work to strengthen the significance of the variables depending on their
values. For instance, as motor vehicle volumes initially increase, the bicycle
LOS drops dramatically. At higher motor vehicle volumes, however, the
Bicycle LOS declines more slowly.
The Pedestrian LOS model, also developed by Bruce Landis of Sprinkle
Consulting, Inc., recommends a pedestrian level of service based on the
following four variables, ordered by their level of significance:
•

Existence of a sidewalk

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

4.0 multimodal level of service models

35

•

Lateral separation of pedestrians from motorized vehicles

•

Motorized vehicle volumes

Table 7: Service Measures

•

Motorized vehicle speeds

Transit Stop

Route Segment

System

Availability

Frequency

Hours of Service

Service Coverage

Comfort & Convenience

Passenger Load

Reliability

Transit-Auto Travel Time

The Pedestrian LOS model, as developed by Bruce Landis, is discussed in
greater detail on page 37.
See Florida Quality/Level of Service Handbook (2009).

The individual service measures listed in Table 7 represent the following
factors:

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual
The Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM) is a reference
guide intended for use by policy and transit practitioners, containing
information and guidelines for measuring transit availability and quality
of service from a passenger point of view (Transit Cooperative Research
Program, 2003). It is the leading manual for calculating transit capacity and
quality of service procedures, and is referenced as such in the HCM.
The TCQSM was first published in 1999 by the Transportation Research
Board (TRB). The second edition, TCRP Report 100: Transit Capacity and
Quality of Service Manual, was published in 2003. This edition presented
a two-dimensional LOS framework that focuses on quality of service
(availability, comfort and convenience) for three transit system elements
(stops, route segments and systems).
See Table 7 for a depiction of the TCQSM’s two-dimensional LOS framework.
Each of the cells represented in the matrix provide a service measure for
which LOS is calculated. The transit material presented in the HCM 2000 is a
subset of the TCQSM. The second edition of the TCQSM provides a quality
of service framework for fixed-route service and one for demand-responsive
service. Quality of service is quantified by six levels of service, ranging
from A to F (for fixed-route transit). These measures can be used to assess
transit quality of service at an individual transit stop, along a route segment,
throughout the system, and even from a broader perspective. Table 7
illustrates the TCQSM framework for fixed-route transit.
multimodal level of service in king county

Source: TRB- TCQSM, Edition 2

Availability Measures of LOS
•

Stops: frequency of service

•

Segments: hours of service each day

•

System: service coverage area as a percentage of the transit
supportive area (defined as an area with a minimum density of
four jobs per gross acre)

Comfort and Convenience Measures of LOS
•

Stops: passenger load (total number of passengers to number of
seats)

•

Segments: on time performance

•

System: door-to-door travel time difference between driving a
car and taking transit

The 2010 HCM refers users to the TCQSM for transit-specific capacity and
quality of service procedures. Transit quality of service, however, is still
addressed in the HCM from a multimodal context (Transportation Research
Board, 2010). It is noted in NCHRP Report 616 that the TCQSM is oriented to
the entire service area, the entire route or the bus stop, and therefore it was
necessary for the recommended Transit LOS model in NCHRP Report 616 to
extract a subset of quality of service measures that were most pertinent to
the urban street (Transportation Research Board, 2008).

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

4.0 multimodal level of service models
See Transit Capacity and Quality of Service
Manual (2003).

36

Table 8: Bicycle LOS Model Data Needs
Annual Average Daily Traffic

Width of paving between the shoulder/
edge stripe and the edge of pavement

Designate bicycle route

Percent Heavy Vehicles

Width of pavement striped for on-street
parking (only if there is parking to the
right of a striped bike lane)

Share the road signs

85th Percentile Speed

Total pavement width (only if three or
more through lanes)

Rumble strips

Direction of Survey

Width of paving between the shoulder/
edge stripe and the edge of pavement

Steep grade

Number of through lanes (both directions, not included right-turn lanes)

Roadside profile condition (for facilities
with no sidewalks or sidepaths)

Bicycle Level of Service Model
Various models have been developed to calculate
the bicycle level of service for a facility type
(references provided at the end of this section).
A model that has received significant use and
revision over the years is the Bicycle LOS (BLOS)
Model, developed initially by Bruce Landis of
Sprinkle Consulting. It is based on the evaluation
of over 250,000 miles of urban, suburban and rural
roads in North America. The Florida Department
of Transportation, as well as other jurisdictions
around the country, have adopted this model
as a recommended approach to evaluating
bicycling conditions on specific types of roadways.
The Bicycle LOS model is documented in the
Transportation Research Record 1578, published
by the Transportation Research Board of the
National Academy of Sciences (Landis, 1997).

Source: (City of Rockville, 2004)

The Bicycle LOS model is an evaluation of the perceived comfort and safety
of bicyclists traveling within a roadway corridor. Over the years, refinements
have been made to the original BLOS model, which today exists as the
Bicycle LOS Model Version 2.0. In 2007, Sprinkle Consulting released a
document entitled “Bicycle Level of Service – Applied Model,” which is
based on Version 2 of the BLOS model (Sprinkle Consulting, Inc., 2007). The
model takes into account factors such as roadway width, bike lane width,
striping combinations, traffic volumes, pavement surface conditions, motor
vehicle speed and type, and on-street parking.
The BLOS model can be used in a variety of planning and design
applications. These applications include:
•

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

4.0 multimodal level of service models

37

(Landis et al., 1997)

•

Motor vehicle volume on the street being crossed

•

FDOT Quality/Level of Service Handbook (2002)

•

•

Bicycle Level of Service for Arterials (Petritsch et al., 2006)

Mid-block 85 percentile speed of the vehicles on the street being
crossed

•

NCHRP 3-70, 616, 128

•

Number of lanes being crossed

•

HCM 2010

•

The pedestrian’s delay

•

Presence or absence of right-turn channelization islands

Pedestrian Level of Service Model

Pedestrian Level of Service Models/References:

The leading Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) model was also developed by
Bruce Landis et al. and is documented in the Transportation Research Record
1773 (“Modeling the Roadside Walking Environment: Pedestrian Level of
Service”). The PLOS model was developed for the Florida Department of
Transportation using 1,315 real-time observations from Pensacola, Florida.
The model reflects the perspective of pedestrians sharing the roadside
environment with motor vehicles (Landis, 2001). Variables included in the
PLOS are:

•

Pedestrian Level of Service Model for Urban Arterial Facilities
with Sidewalks (2005)

Other pedestrian LOS models and application guides exist as well. For
example, the “Pedestrian Level of Service Model for Signalized Intersections”
provides a measure of the pedestrian’s perspective on how well an
intersection’s geometric and operational characteristics meet his or her needs
(Crider & Guttenplan, 2008). The primary factors evaluated in this model
include the following:
•

Right-turn-on-red volumes

•

Permissive left turns from the street parallel to the crosswalk

multimodal level of service in king county

Summary
Chapter 4.0 provided an introduction to many of the available multimodal
LOS models and guides. While each model has its merits, the HCM 2010
provides the most comprehensive approach to evaluating the LOS for
users of multiple modes within an urban street environment. Significant
advancements have been made between the 2000 and 2010 HCM,
presenting agencies with tools to evaluate the completeness of roadway
design as it relates to all users. The other models discussed in this section –
including the TCQSM, Bicycle and Pedestrian Level of Service models, and

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

4.0 multimodal level of service models

38

the FDOT Quality/Level of Service Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; although applicable in a variety
of situations, have limits in terms of their ability to provide comparable
LOS scores across all modes. As agencies seek to improve the multimodal
functionality of their transportation networks, the HCM 2010 provides
a useful framework for evaluating the performance of existing or future
roadway designs from the perspective of each user group. The HCM 2010,
in addition to its several chapters devoted to multimodal LOS, provides an
online application guide to assist agencies in implementing the models. A
summary of the equations pertaining to the multimodal LOS framework can
be found in the Appendix to this guide.

multimodal level of service in king county

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Seattle & King County

5.0 works cited

39

Works Cited

King County. (2010). King County Countywide Planning Policies.

Bhatia, R. (2005). Automobile Level of Service: A Liability for Health and Environmental Quality. San Francisco Department of Public Health.

National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
Report 3-70 (616)
»»

Proposed Integrated Multimodal Level of Service Framework

»»

Applications: Step-by-Step Procedures

Highway Capacity Manual 2010
»»

Multimodal LOS equations

Exa mple L OS Standards: Comm unities Puttin g
Prevention to Work (CPPW) Cities
Local jurisdictions are encouraged to develop LOS standards that are
consistent with the LOS Framework Guidelines adopted by the Growth
Management Planning Council. Under the GMA, LOS standards should
be coordinated regionally. The following examples illustrate the policy
framework for the City of Kent and the City of Burien as they relate to LOS
and concurrency.

Kent’s LOS methods follow those described in the Highway Capacity
Manual 2000. The city’s adopted LOS standards require that 15 of their
16 designated corridors operate at LOS E or better during the PM peak
hour – corridors below this grade are considered deficient.
Unique to the City of Kent, specific corridors, including Pacific Highway
and downtown Kent, are allowed to operate at LOS F. Downtown,
pedestrians rather than vehicles have priority in the street system.
City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Policy TR-3.1 (2010 DEIS): Maintain level
of service (LOS) standards that promote growth where appropriate while
preserving and maintaining the existing transportation system. Set LOS
E as the standard for City Street Corridors. Set LOS F as the standard
for the Pacific Highway (SR 99) Corridor and for downtown Kent while
recognizing WSDOT’s LOS D for SR 99.

City of Burien: Comprehensive Plan (2010)
The City of Burien recommends implementing measures that relieve
congestion and safety concerns on Burien roadways. The following policies
illustrate Burien’s policy approach to LOS.
Pol. TR 1.1.1 The City shall maintain and monitor transportation Level of
Service (LOS) standards for Burien roadways.

As stated in the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan:

Pol. TR 1.1.2 The City adopts the following Level-of-Service standards:
LOS standard E for First Avenue South; LOS standard D within the urban
center boundary, as shown in Figure 2LU-1.11, and for the intersection
of SW 128th Street and Ambaum Boulevard SW; and LOS C for all other
roadway facilities and services.

“LOS standards are measures of the quality of life of the community. The
standards should be based on the Community’s vision of its future and
its values. The final legal authority to establish LOS standards rests with

Pol. TR 1.1.3 As mandated by state law, the City of Burien adopts an
LOS of D for SR-509 and SR-518 (highways of statewide significance) and
an LOS of E/mitigated for the segment of SR-509 from 1st Avenue South

City of Kent

multimodal level of service in king county

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

6.0 appendix

42

to Burien City Limits (highway of regional significance), or whichever
LOS is currently adopted by the Washington State Department of
Transportation.

Pol. TR 1.2.5 The City shall require that new development must be
responsible for street improvements adjacent to and internal to the
development (e.g. through environmental review).

Pol. TR 1.1.6 If transportation improvements needed to maintain
adopted LOS standards are not able to be funded, the City shall:
Phase development consistent with the land use plan until such time that
adequate resources can be identified to provide adequate transportation
improvements; or
Reassess the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s land use plan to reduce the travel demand placed on
the system to the degree necessary to meet adopted transportation LOS
standards; or
Reassess the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s adopted LOS standards to reflect service levels that
can be maintained given known financial resources.
Pol. TR 1.2.1 The City shall explore the development of a concurrency
ordinance.
Pol. TR 1.2.2 The City shall require that new development shall be
allowed only if (1) all transportation facilities are adequate at the time
of development and transportation impacts will not negatively impact
or reduce LOS elsewhere or (2) a financial commitment is in place to
complete the necessary improvements or strategies to accommodate
transportation impacts within six years, in order to protect investment
in and the efficiency of existing transportation facilities and services and
promote compact growth.
Pol. TR 1.2.3 The City should require developers to conduct traffic
studies or analyses to determine development impacts on the
transportation system.
Pol. TR 1.2.4 The City should require developers to mitigate
development impacts through improvements or strategies such as
nonmotorized transportation modes, transit, ridesharing or transportation
demand management.

multimodal level of service in king county

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Seattle & King County

6.0 appendix

43

NCHRP 3-70 (R epo rt 616): Multimodal Level of
Service Analysis for Urban Streets
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 3-70 provides
the basis for the multimodal LOS chapter in the HCM 2010. The research
and findings are described in detail in NCHRP Report 616. An additional
component to NCHRP Project 3-70 is NCHRP 1281, an online Users Guide
(application described later in this section), which provides agencies with a
toolkit for easily implementing the multimodal LOS methods.
The research informing NCHRP Report 616 (Project 3-70) represents two
years of study into how users of urban streets perceive the multimodal quality
of service provided (NCHRP Project 3-70). The research was conducted by
modal experts from around the country in an effort to develop a method
for evaluating the multimodal level of service (MMLOS) provided by
various urban street designs. The models that were developed are ideal
for evaluating Complete Streets from the user’s perspective. The research
methodology included reviewing video clips of 90 typical street crosssections to develop perception ratings (by mode) ranging from “best” to
“worst.”

for automobiles, fixed-route transit, bicycles and pedestrians. Agencies
may use the framework’s straitforward methods to implement and utilize
Table 9: Interaction of Modal LOS Model Inputs
Inputs to LOS Models

Facility
Design

Facility
Control

Transit
Service

Auto
Volume

Transit
Volume

Bicycle
Volume

Pedestrian
Volume

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Auto LOS Model 1
Auto Stops (or Delay)
Left Turn Lanes

X

Auto LOS Model 2
Mean Speed
Median Type

X

Transit LOS Model
Pedestrian LOS

X

X

Bus Headway
Bus Speed

X

Bus Schedule Adherence

X

Passenger Load
Bus Stop Amenities

X

X

X
X

Bicycle LOS Models

Four separate LOS models were developed through this research, one
for each mode. The models are unique in that they incorporate, directly
and indirectly, the interactions between each mode (see Table 9). The
methodology that was developed allows for trade-offs to be evaluated
among street designs. For example, the addition of a bicycle lane within an
existing roadway can be evaluated based on how it influences the level of
service for each separate mode.
The MMLOS analysis framework allows level of service to be estimated
1 Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets: Users Guide
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w128.pdf160021
Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets: Users Guide: TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Web-Only Document 128, Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets: Users Guide explores a set of procedures for predicting traveler perceptions of quality of service and performance
measures for urban streets. Quality of service and performance are considered in terms of the needs of auto
drivers, bus passengers, bicyclists and pedestrians. The final report on development of the multimodal level of
service analysis for urban streets was published by TRB as NCHRP Report 616.

multimodal level of service in king county

Bike-Pedestrian
Conflicts

X

Driveway Conflicts/
Mile

X

Vehicles Per Hour
Vehicle Through
Lanes

X

Auto Speed

X

X

Percent Heavy Vehicles
Pavement Condition

X

Width of Outside
Lane

X

On-street Parking
Occupancy

X

Cross Street Width

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Pedestrian LOS Model

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

6.0 appendix

44

Table 9: Interaction of Modal LOS Model Inputs
Inputs to LOS Models

Facility
Design

Pedestrian Density

X

Pedestrian-Bike
Conflicts*

X

Width of Shoulder

X

Width of Outside
Lane

X

On-Street Parking
Occupancy

X

Presence of Trees

X

Sidewalk Width

X

Distance To Travel
Lane

X

Facility
Control

Transit
Service

Auto
Volume

Bicycle
Volume
X

Pedestrian
Volume

Table 10: Multimodal LOS Framework
LOS Model Outputs

LOS Letter Grade

X

Model <=2.00

A

X

2.00 < Model <= 2.75

B

2.75 < Model <= 3.50

C

3.50 < Model <= 4.25

D

4.25 < Model <= 5.00

E

Model > 5.00

F

Source: ource: NCHRP Report 616

Proposed Integrated Multimodal Level of Service Framework

Vehicles Per Hour

X

X

X

Vehicle Through
Lanes

X

Average Vehicle
Speed

X

X

X

Right Turns On Red

X

X

X

Cross Street Speed

X

X

Cross Street Vehicles/
Hour
Cross Street Lanes

Transit
Volume

X

X

X
X

X

X

Crossing Delay

X

Right-T urn Channelization

X

Block Length

X

Signal Cycle Length

X

X

X

X

Signal Green Ti me

X

X

X

X

Source: NCHRP Report 616, page 93

data commonly gathered by jurisdictions. The types of data necessary to
compute the MMLOS include geometric cross-section, signal timing, posted
speed limit, bus headways, traffic volumes, transit patronage and pedestrian
volumes. Under this framework, each mode receives a separate LOS
calculation, which is converted into the tradition A – F letter grade system.
See Table 10.

multimodal level of service in king county

The integrated Multimodal Level of Service Framework, developed through
NCHRP 3-70, was created for inclusion in the 2010 Highway Capacity
Manual. Chapter 4 discusses the details of the multimodal LOS measures
adopted into the HCM 2010. The framework is based on an average level of
service for each of the following modes:
•

Auto drivers

•

Bus Passengers

•

Bicycle Riders

•

Pedestrians

The framework provides a separate LOS calculation for each of the four
modes; they are not combined into one comprehensive level of service
for all modes. The individual LOS scores reflect the “average degree of
satisfaction with the urban street that would be reported by a large group of
travelers using that mode of travel if they had traveled the full length of the
study section of the street.” The structure of the multimodal LOS follows
the six-letter grade system (A – F) of the Highway Capacity Manual, relying
on 37 variables to predict the level of satisfaction experienced by travelers
along an urban street. The variables can be categorized by facility design,
facility control, transit service characteristics and the volume of vehicle traffic
(Transportation Research Board, 2008).

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

6.0 appendix

45

NCHRP Report 128 provides the multimodal level of service analysis for
the urban streets users guide. This users guide includes methodologies for
estimating level of service and performance measures as well as a step-bystep procedure for applying the methods. The final chapter presents sample
problems illustrating the application of the methodologies. For purposes of
NCHRP Report 128, an urban street is defined as a public road with traffic
signal control at least once every two miles (Dowling, 2009).
Analysis Segments
Because conditions vary over the length of a street facility, it is usually
necessary to divide the study section of the street into segments. Each
segment consists of a section of the street, typically between two
intersections.
Multimodal LOS Models
Auto Level of Service
The recommended automobile level of service is a function of the average
travel speed and the average number of stops per mile. The more stops per
mile, the poorer the level of service; whereas the more intersections with leftturn lanes, the better the level of service. NCHRP Report 616 recommends
two auto LOS models: Model 1, which uses auto stops per mile and the
presence of left-turn lanes, and Model 2, which uses mean speed limit and
median type.
Transit Level of Service
The recommended Transit LOS model was influenced through on-board
surveys determining the key quality of service factors for people using transit.
Based partly on the survey findings, the following factors were recommended
for inclusion in the Transit LOS model:
•

Service frequency (headways)

•

Travel time (speed)

•

Crowding

multimodal level of service in king county

•

Reliability

•

Presence of stop amenities to reduce perceived wait time

•

Pedestrian LOS

Transit level of service is a function of how accessible the service is for
pedestrians, amenities at the bus stop, wait time experienced at the bus
stop, and the mean travel speed for the bus. The Transit LOS variables
include pedestrian LOS, bus headway, bus speed, bus on-time performance,
passenger load and bus stop amenities.
Bicycle Level of Service
The Bicycle LOS models recommended in NCHRP Report 616 are a
weighted combination of bicyclists’ experiences at intersections and on
street segments in between the intersections (Transportation Research
Board, 2008). There are two models recommended, one which fits better
with the numerical scores given by video lab participants to video lab scores,
and the second, which produces the full range of LOS scores (A – F) for the
video clips (Model 1 does not). Both models use the same intersection and
segment LOS calculations. Bicycle Segment LOS is a function of perceived
separation between motor vehicles, parked vehicle interference, pavement
quality, higher vehicle volumes, percent heavy vehicles and higher vehicle
speeds. The recommended Bicycle Intersection LOS is based on the total
width of the outside lane and bike lane, crossing distance at intersection,
volume of directional traffic and total number of through lanes on the
approach to the intersection. The BLOS Model reflects both the intersection
and segment LOS scores in addition to a calculation of the number of
unsignalized conflicts (intersections and driveways) per mile.
Table 11 illustrates the variance in bicycle LOS outputs between NCHRP
Report 616’s two models, the HCM 2000 BLOS and the NCHRP Project 3-70
video BLOS. Note that the HCM 2000 BLOS model (in the example below)
would produce a Bicycle LOS score of B in situations that would not be
considered bike-friendly by the average bicyclist (note Video LOS scores).

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

Similar to the Bicycle LOS model, there are two recommended Pedestrian
LOS models (one which fits better with the video lab data and one which
produces the full range of scores, A â&#x20AC;&#x201C; F). The average pedestrian LOS
takes into account three urban street divisions: segment level of service,
intersection level of service, and mid-block crossing difficulty.

The proposed Pedestrian LOS model is based on a combination of
pedestrian density and other factors. The model predicts the mean level of
service that would be reported by a pedestrian using the urban street. The
approach to calculating pedestrian LOS includes calculating the pedestrian
density (see Table 12) and then calculating pedestrian LOS based on other
factors. The final Pedestrian LOS is the worse of the two scores.

Pedestrian Flow Rate

Pedestrian Level of Service

Table 13 provides the results of four LOS calculations. Models 1 and 2
were developed through NCHRP 3-70 and reported in NCHRP Report 616.
These models were informed by the video LOS results and are compared to
the 2000 HCM Pedestrian LOS outputs. The examples below illustrate the
potential deficiencies in the HCM methodology, producing for example a
Pedestrian LOS of A on a roadway with no sidewalks and no pedestrians, in
addition to four travel lanes in each direction and a speed limit of 45.

Sidewalk Width

Source: NCHRP Report 616

4

1320

12

0

100%

Y

2

80

1

30

B

E

B

B

0

0

12

4

0

N

0

2170

4

45

D

A

E

F

Source: NCHRP Report 616, excerpt from page 90

Applications: Step-by-Step Procedures
The key steps to computing the multimodal LOS for a transportation facility
are as follows (extracted from User Guide 128; full description and equations
found here):

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Seattle & King County

6.0 appendix
1.

2.

3.

47

Select Analysis Method: There are various analysis methods that
can be performed using the multimodal LOS guide. This includes
a planning analysis (when many design aspects of a facility are not
known or not relevant), design analysis and operations analysis.
Segment the Facility: The study length should be divided into
analysis segments (segments and intersections).
Gather data: Table 14 illustrates the required data for conducting the
LOS analysis (defaults are suggested).

Table 14: Required Data and Suggested Defaults
Percent heavy vehicles

5% or local default

Local bus volume

No default

On-time performance of transit

75% or local default

Peak passenger load factor for transit

0.80 or local default

Pedestrian volume

No default

Percent of on-street parking occupied

50% or local default

Intersection Control
Saturation flow rate through lanes

1800 or local default

Green time per cycle for through move

0.40 or local default

Table 14: Required Data and Suggested Defaults

Green time per cycle for cross street

0.40 or local default

Street Geometry

Cycling length

100 seconds or local default

Number of through lanes

No default

Quality of progression

Use 3 for random progress

Travel lane widths

12 feet or local default

Speed limit

Use local default

Median width

12 feet or local default

Cross-street speed limit

Use local default

Bike lane width

5 feet or local default

Source: NCHRP 128 Web-only Version, page 30

Shoulder width

No default

Parking lane width

8 feet or local default

Planter strip width

No default

Presence of barrier in planter strip

No default

Sidewalk width

5 feet or local default

Presence of left turn lanes at intersections

No default

Length of analysis segment

No default

Presence of right turn channelization islands at intersections

No default

Cross-street through lanes at intersections (#)

No default

Cross-street through lanes at intersections (#)

No default

Number of transit stops (#)
Percent of transit stops with shelters (%)
Percent of transit stops with benches (%)

Use local defaults

Unsignalized intersections and driveways
(#/mile)

Use local defaults

Pavement condition (1-5)

3 for satisfactory condition

Measure or Forecast Auto Performance: Equations 31 and 32 are
used to estimate the mean auto speed. Equation 34 is used to
estimate the number of stops per mile

5.

Compute Auto LOS: Compute for each direction of travel using the
following steps:
•

Compute V/C Ratio

No default

•

Compute mean through speed (equations 31 & 32)

Use local defaults

•

Compute stops and left lanes (equation 34)

•

Compute Auto LOS

Demand
Intersection vehicle turning moves (vph)

No default

Intersection vehicle turning moves (vph)

No default

Vehicle peak hour factor (PHF)

.92 or local default

multimodal level of service in king county

4.

6.

Measure or Forecast Pedestrian Performance: This step can be
skipped if performance data is not required (it is not required to
compute Ped LOS).

Made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County

6.0 appendix
7.

48

Compute Pedestrian LOS
•

Compute Pedestrian Density LOS

•

Compute Pedestrian Segment LOS

•

Compute Pedestrian Intersection LOS

•

Compute Roadway Crossing Difficulty Factor

•

Compute Pedestrian Facility LOS

8.

Measure or Forecast Transit Performance

9.

Compute Transit LOS: Compute for each direction of travel according
to the following steps:

NCHRP User Guide 128 also provides a series of look-up tables for
conducting quick estimates of the basic design characteristics that will
be necessary for achieving specific levels of service. Table 15 provides a
snapshot of the exhibits included in NCHRP Report 128 (Chapter 5).

= Average effective width of outside through lane (ft)
= Percentage of segment with occupied on-street parking
= width of paving between the outside lane stripe and the edge of pavement
(ft)
= Effective width as a function of traffic volume (ft)